引用本文:王世凯,薛林涛,谭卫红,毛献宝,李政达,覃 捷,成俊萍,周亭亭.Time-lapse培养与常规培养对胚胎发育影响的研究[J].中国临床新医学,2019,12(6):619-623.
【打印本页】   【下载PDF全文】   查看/发表评论  【EndNote】   【RefMan】   【BibTex】
←前一篇|后一篇→ 过刊浏览    高级检索
本文已被:浏览 216次   下载 81 本文二维码信息
码上扫一扫!
分享到: 微信 更多
Time-lapse培养与常规培养对胚胎发育影响的研究
王世凯,薛林涛,谭卫红,毛献宝,李政达,覃 捷,成俊萍,周亭亭
530021 南宁,广西壮族自治区人民医院生殖医学与遗传中心
摘要:
[摘要] 目的 评价时差成像技术(time-lapse)培养与常规培养对胚胎发育的影响。方法 回顾性分析在该中心接受体外受精(IVF)/卵胞浆内单精子注射(ICSI)治疗的593个周期的胚胎发育数据,其中time-lapse培养组(TL组)351个周期,常规培养组(CO组)242个周期,比较两组间受精率、卵裂率、优质胚胎率、可冻胚胎率、可用胚胎率、囊胚形成率、优质囊胚率和可冻囊胚率的差异。结果 (1)两组在女方年龄、不孕年限、平均获卵数、平均MII卵数等一般资料比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。(2)TL组和CO组在1PN受精率(3.14% vs 3.54%)、≥3PN受精率(7.36% vs 8.74%)和不明受精率(2.16% vs 2.75%)等指标比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);TL组的2PN受精率显著高于CO组(71.44% vs 64.07%),差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。(3)TL组和CO组在总卵裂率(98.26% vs 98.54%)、2PN卵裂率(98.84% vs 98.90%)和可用胚胎率(78.69% vs 77.30%)等指标比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);TL组的优质胚胎率(45.21% vs 41.92%)和可冻胚胎率(62.16% vs 54.47%)显著高于CO组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。(4)TL组和CO组在囊胚形成率(64.71% vs 67.80%)、优质囊胚率(20.59% vs 19.42%)和可冻囊胚率(33.79% vs 34.12%)等指标比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 Time-lapse培养对胚胎的发育没有显著的不利影响,并可以提供更多胚胎发育信息来用于胚胎选择。
关键词:  时差成像技术  胚胎培养  囊胚培养  安全性
DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-3806.2019.06.10
分类号:R 711.6
基金项目:广西卫健委科研课题(编号:Z20170336)
Study on the effects of time-lapse culture and conventional culture on the development of embryos
WANG Shi-kai, XUE Lin-tao, TAN Wei-hong, et al.
Reproductive and Genetic Center, the People′s Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning 530021, China
Abstract:
[Abstract] Objective To evaluate the effects of time-lapse culture and conventional embryo culture on the development of embryos. Methods The embryo development data of 593 in-vitro fertilization(IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection(ICSI) cycles(including 351 cycles in TL group and 242 cycles in CO group) were retrospectively analyzed. The fertilization rate, cleavage rate, good embryo rate, frozen embryo rate, available embryo rate, blastocyst formation rate, good blastocyst rate and frozen blastocyst rate were compared between the two groups. Results (1)There were no significant differences between the two groups in female age, duration of infertility, retrieved oocytes and MII oocytes(P>0.05). (2)There were no significant differences in 1PN(3.14% vs 3.54%), ≥3PN(7.36% vs 8.74%) and unknown fertilization rate(2.16% vs 2.75%) between the two groups(P>0.05), but 2PN fertilization rate in TL group was significantly higher than that in CO group(71.44% vs 64.07%)(P<0.05). (3)There were no significant differences in the total cleavage rate(98.26% vs 98.54%), 2PN cleavage rate(98.84% vs 98.90%) and available embryo rate(78.69% vs 77.30%) between the two groups(P>0.05), but the good embryo rate and the frozen embryo rate of TL group were significantly higher than those of CO group(45.21% vs 41.92%, 62.16% vs 54.47%)(P<0.05). (4)There were no significant differences in the blastocyst formation rate, good blastocyst rate and the frozen blastocyst rate between the two groups(64.71% vs 67.80%, 20.59% vs 19.42%, 33.79% vs 34.12%)(P>0.05). Conclusion Time-lapse culture does not have a significant adverse impact on the development of embryos, and can provide more information on embryo development for the selection of embryos.
Key words:  Time-lapse  Embryo culture  Blastocyst culture  Safety